Latest to join the cacophony of female voices demonstrating a distinct disconnect between mouth and brain is MP for West Coast GRC Foo Mee Har, who proposed that joint consent of both spouses be required when a member’s CPF withdrawal is linked to a CPF charge on the couple’s jointly owned property. She may not intend it, but a pre-nuptial agreement style arrangement will drive a wedge into any fragile marriage.
A classmate married late, so he was earning twice as much as his bride of 10 years younger when they bought their first house. His Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution to the joint purchase was close to 80 percent of the total financing. When they upgraded and sold the first house, some clerk credited the bulk of the CPF sum withdrawn for the first purchase to his wife's account without so much as informing him. Pressed for a reason, he was told his "wife's CPF balance was so low". He left it at that, believing that married couples should not quibble over money. Thanks to the ups and downs of the private sector, his salary is now close to his wife's, who is a civil servant with an iron rice bowl and compounding annual salary adjustments of 5 percent on the average. All this talk of who actually owns his CPF monies is now driving him nuts. Why, oh why, did he not sign a pre-nuptial agreement before tying the knot, he laments.
Friends provide consolation by assuring him his better half is not the gold digger type, so there may be hope in this world after all. Then these female politicians afflicted with verbal diarrhea had to send him back into deep depression by suggesting CPF top ups for spouses and joint consents.